The High Court of Ireland, in a case where a woman had been denied entry into Ireland and detained for three days, had this to say: It is a matter of profound regret that a perfectly innocent person who had every right to enter the State was instead refused entry and found herself obliged to spend the equivalent of almost three full days in custody. This must have been a humiliating and degrading experience for her- (see Raducan & Anor -v- MJELR & Ors [2011] IEHC 224 at para 26), Return to Kenya 109. The foregoing analysis clearly shows that the Applicants’ return to Kenya was unjustified, high-handed and was procured through unlawful means. 110. Our answer to the issue, therefore, is that the actions and decisions to declare the Applicant a prohibited immigrant, deny him entry into Uganda, detain him and return him to Kenya were illegal, unjustified, unlawful and inconsistent with transparency, accountability, rule of law; and universally accepted standards of human rights and, therefore, in violation of his rights and Uganda’s obligations under Articles 6(d) and 7 (2) of the Treaty and Articles 7(2) and 54(2) of the Protocol. Whether the actions of the Respondent were in conformity with Article 104 of the EAC Treaty and Article 7 (6) of the Common Market Protocol 111. For ease of reference, we shall reproduce the content of the relevant provisions of the Treaty and the Common Market Protocol in this Reference and analyse them systematically. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 48